IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the importance of conducting a timely and fair Departmental enquiry as per the provisions of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rule, 1965, and the consequences of failure to do so.

JUDGMENT :

N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.

1. Heard Mr. J. Jini, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N. Ratan, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Ms. R. Basar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State.

2. The petitioner by way of instituting the present proceedings has prayed for an interference by this Court with the order of suspension, dated 16.12.2022, issued in his case and for a direction to reinstate in his service with all consequential benefits.

3. The petitioner came to be placed under arrest in connection with Itanagar P.S. Case No. 229/2022 under Sections 120(B)/420/406/407/409 IPC. The allegation in the said case was that the questions paper of the recruitment for the posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil) conducted by the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC) on 26.08.2022 and 27.08.2022 was leaked and the petitioner was arrested in connection with the said case on 02.12.2022. In view of his arrest on 02.12.2022 and being under detention for more than of 48 hours thereafter, the petitioner came to be placed under suspension vide an order, dated 16.12.2022, invoking the provisions of Rule 10(2)(1) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rule, 1965. The disciplinary authority, thereafter, vide memorandum, dated 06.01.2023, instituted a Departmental Proceeding Committee (DPC) against the petitioner basing on four articles of charge as levelled against him therein. The petitioner as of 06.01.2023 was under detention and this Court vide order, dated 09.03.2023, passed in Bail Application No. 29/2023 was pleased to enlarge the petitioner on default bail. The petitioner contends that after having enlarged on bail he had on 10.03.2023, informed the Chief Secretary, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar about his such release. The petitioner, thereafter, submitted application praying for revocation of his order of suspension on the ground that the same having not been reviewed in terms of the provisions of the said Rule of 1965, the same has spent its force and he was entitled to be reinstated in his service.

4. The learned counsel for the parties have made submission in tune with the pleadings as brought on record by the respective parties. Accordingly, the submission made by the parties are not reproduced herein-below.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record.

6. The petitioner admittedly was placed under suspension on 06.12.2022 and he continued to remain under suspension on 06.01.2023 when the DPC was initiated against him. The petitioner was granted the privilege of bail vide an order, dated 09.03.2023, passed by this Court.

7. On institution of the present proceedings, the respondent had initially filed an affidavit in the matter and therein had contended that the intimation as given by the petitioner on 10.03.2023 was not received by any of the authorities and accordingly, there may have occasioned a delay in reviewing the order of his suspension. It was also contended that the suspension of the petitioner would be considered in terms of the outcome of the departmental proceedings already instituted against the petitioner.

8. The respondents have also contended that although a formal intimation was not received from the petitioner about his release from the jail, however, the authorities were from time to time extending the order of suspension as passed against the petitioner. It was contended that the said police case registered against the petitioner was taken over by the CBI, ACP, Guwahati Camp Itanagar. Accordingly, on 12.10.2023, a Review Committee headed by the Chief Secretary of the State was constituted and the said committee extended the period of suspension by noticing that the intimation as to whether the petitioner was released from the detention was not received either from the petitioner or from any other source. Further, the said Committee in its meeting held on 23.11.2023 on receip